alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. O’Malley , ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2016-Ohio-7387.]

D ISCIPLINARY C OUNSEL v . O’M ALLEY . [Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. O’Malley , ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2016-Ohio-7387.] (No. 2012-2070

— Submitted October 11, 2016

— Decided October 20, 2016.)
O N P ETITION FOR R EINSTATEMENT

.

____________________ {¶ 1} This cause came on for further consideration upon the filing on January 27, 2016, of a petition for reinst atement by respondent, Joseph Patrick O'Malley, Attorney Registration No. 0060087. In accordance with Gov.Bar R. V(25)(E), respondent’s petition for reinstat ement was referred to the Board of
Professional Conduct. The boa rd filed its final report in this court on August 8, 2016, recommending that respondent be reinstat ed to the practice of law in Ohio. No objections to the final report were file d, and this cause was considered by the

court. {¶ 2} Upon consideration thereof, it is ordered by this court that the petition for reinstatement of respondent is granted and that respondent, Joseph Patrick O'Malley, last known address in Westlake, Ohio, is reinstated to the practice of law in Ohio. {¶ 3} It is further ordered by the court th at respondent be taxed the costs of these proceedings in the amount of $1,228.55, less the deposit of $500.00, for a total balance due of $728.55 payable, by cashier’s check or money order, by respondent on or before 90 days from the date of this order. If costs are not paid on or before 90 days from the date of this order, interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum will accrue until costs are paid in fu ll. It is further ordered that if costs are not paid in full on or before 90 days from the date of this order, the matter may be referred to the attorney gene ral for collection and respondent may beS UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

2 found in contempt and suspe nded until all costs and accrued interest are paid in full. It is further ordered that respondent is liable for all collections costs pursuant
to R.C. 131.02 if the debt is certified to the attorney general for collection. {¶ 4} It is further ordered by the court th at within 90 days of the date of this order respondent shall reimburse any amounts that ha ve been awarded against respondent by the Lawyers’ Fund for Clie nt Protection pursuant to Gov.Bar R. VIII(7)(F). It is further ordered by the court that if after the date of this order the Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection awards any amount against respondent pursuant to Gov.Bar R. VIII(7)(F), responde nt shall reimburse that amount to the Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection within 90 days of the notice of such award. {¶ 5} It is further ordered that the clerk of this court issue certified copies of this order as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V(17)(D)(1) and that publication be made as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V(17)(D)(2). {¶ 6} For earlier case, see Disciplinary Counsel v. O’Malley , 137 Ohio St.3d 161, 2013-Ohio-4566, 998 N.E.2d 470.
O’C ONNOR , C.J., and P FEIFER , O’D ONNELL , L ANZINGER , K ENNEDY , F RENCH , and O’N EILL , JJ., concur.

________________________
III 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 161 

Designating May 2011, as ‘‘National Inventors Month’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 3, 2011 

Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. GRASSLEY, and Mr. COONS) submitted the 

following resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Designating May 2011, as ‘‘National Inventors Month’’. 

Whereas the first United States patent was issued in 1790 

to Samuel Hopkins of the State of Vermont for a process 

to make better fertilizer; 

Whereas American inventors have contributed to advances in 

life sciences, technology, and manufacturing; 

Whereas the Constitution specifically provides for the granting of exclusive rights to inventors for their discoveries; 

Whereas the United States patent system is intended to implement that constitutional imperative and incentivize inventions; 

Whereas American inventors benefit from an up-to-date and 

efficient patent system and the economy, jobs, and consumers of the United States benefit from the inventions; 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 161 ATS 

Whereas the next great American invention could be among 

the 700,000 patent applications pending as of the date 

of approval of this resolution in the United States Patent 

and Trademark Office; 

Whereas the last changes to the United States patent system 

were made nearly 60 years ago; 

Whereas an updated patent system will unleash innovation 

and create jobs in the United States without adding to 

the deficit; 

Whereas every May, a new class of inventors is inducted into 

the National Inventors Hall of Fame; 

Whereas in the 112th Congress, a bill was introduced in the 

House of Representatives entitled the ‘‘America Invents 

Act’’ (H.R. 1249) to make reforms to the United States 

patent system; and 

Whereas the Senate on March 8, 2011, passed the bill entitled the ‘‘America Invents Act’’ (S. 23), which will make 

the first comprehensive reforms to the United States patent system in nearly 60 years: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate designates May 2011, as 

2 ‘‘National Inventors Month’’. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>

     This Schedule  contains summary  financial  information  extracted from Pen
     Interconnect, Inc. September 30, 1996 financial statements and is qualified
     in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.

</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001000266
<NAME>                        Pen Interconnect, Inc.

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              SEP-30-1996

<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         169,445
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  4,533,150
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (273,852)
<INVENTORY>                                    6,198,392
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               11,805,164
<PP&E>                                         4,313,919
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1,065,205)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 16,656,918
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          8,615,347
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       30,334
<OTHER-SE>                                     7,537,697
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   16,656,918
<SALES>                                        25,106,734
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               25,106,735
<CGS>                                          22,582,187
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  25,707,376
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               35,026
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             513,956
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,149,624)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (440,614)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (709,010)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (709,010)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.26)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.26)
        


</TABLE>
# C_2019295EN.01005502.xml

| 2.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 295/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 295/55

---

Action brought on 2 July 2019 — Speciale v Parliament

(Case T-433/19)

(2019/C 295/72)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Roberto Speciale (Bogliasco, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation;

| — | order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount;

| — | order the European Parliament to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-389/19, Coppo Gavazzi v Parliament.

---
# C_2019206EN.01004102.xml

| 17.6.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 206/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.6.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 206/41

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 2 April 2019 — Lantmännen and Lantmännen Agroetanol v Commission

(Case T-79/19 R)

(Application for interim measures - Competition - Settlement procedure - Access to documents - No urgency)

(2019/C 206/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Lantmännen ek för (Stockholm, Sweden), Lantmännen Agroetanol AB (Norrköping, Sweden) (represented by: S. Perván Lindeborg, A. Johansson, lawyers, and R. Bachour, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Jimeno Fernández, G. Conte and C. Urraca Caviedes, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Articles 278 and 279 TFEU seeking the suspension of the operation of the decision of the European Commission C(2019) 743 final of 28 January 2019 on an objection to disclosure submitted by Lantmännen ek för and Lantmännen Agroetanol AB pursuant to Article 8 of Decision 2011/695/EU of the President of the European Commission of 13 October 2011 on the functioning and terms of reference of the hearing officer in certain competition proceedings (Case AT.40054 — Ethanol Benchmarks).

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | The order of 14 February 2019, Lantmännen and Lantmännen Agroetanol v Commission (T-79/19 R), is cancelled. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The order of 14 February 2019, Lantmännen and Lantmännen Agroetanol v Commission (T-79/19 R), is cancelled.

| 3. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The costs are reserved.

---
#### Ferdinand W. Granse *vs.*Carl Frings.

June 20, 1891.

Appeal — Order Vacating Judgment. — An application to tfie municipal court of St. Paul to set aside a judgment taken by the defendant’s mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect is addressed to the discretion of the court, and its decision will not be reversed, except for abuse of discretion.

Appeal by plaintiff from an order of the municipal court of St. Paul, setting aside a judgment in his favor of $298.23, and allowing defendant to answer.

*Otto L. Haese,*for appellant.

*J. B. Fishleigh*and *Holcombe & O'Reilly,*for respondent.

Gilfillan, C. J.

The act relating to the municipal court of the city of St. Paul (Sp. Laws 1889, *c.*351) provides (section 21, subd. 7) that “defaults may be opened, and judgments and orders may beset aside or modified, for good cause shown, within sixty days after the party affected thereby shall have notice or knowledge of the same.” The municipal court having within the 60 days set aside the judgment in favor of plaintiff, rendered by default of defendant to answer, the question made here is, does this provision require that, the party applying for the relief shall show himself entitled to it as a matter of right, or is the application addressed to the sound discretion of the court? The act (section 1) makes the court a court of record, and declares (section 3) that it shall possess all the powers usually possessed by courts of record at common law, subject to. *353the modifications of the statutes of this state applicable to courts of record; and it is vested with all powers over cases within its jurisdiction which are possessed by district courts of this state over cases within their jurisdiction. District courts have power to relieve, in their discretion, in cases of judgments or orders taken through mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. The provision we have quoted was certainly not intended to withhold this power, — a very necessary and beneficial one, — but at most to limit its exercise to the time specified, to wit, 60 days. The “good cause shown" is such cause as would justify the exercise of the power by a district court. The application in such cases is to the discretion of the court, and we see no reason in this case to think there'was any improper exercise of it.

Order affirmed.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v *676Melvin Cook, Appellant.

—Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kay, J.), rendered September 1, 1982, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

Defendant contends that the trial court erred in permitting the prosecutor to question two alibi witnesses concerning their failure to come forward and give exculpatory information to law enforcement officials. "Cross-examination of a defendant’s alibi witness as to his or her prior silence is generally permissible when done in 'good faith’ because of the 'natural impulse of a person possession exculpatory information * * * to come forward at the earliest possible moment in order to forestall the mistaken prosecution of a friend or loved one’ ” *(People v Reed,*83 AD2d 645, quoting from *People v Dawson,*50 NY2d 311, 318, 323). In any event, the prosecutor was warranted, on cross-examination, in exploring the subject of the alibi witnesses’ prior silence, since defendant waived any objection to the testimony in question when he opened the door to the subject during the direct examination of each witness *(see, People v Bunch,*58 AD2d 608).

Further, it appears that even if admission of any of the criticized evidence was error, it was harmless in view of the overwhelming proof of guilt. Two eyewitnesses whose testimony was credible and who had observed defendant closely under good light for several minutes during the crime positively identified defendant near the crime scene approximately 30 minutes after the crime. Conversely, the testimony of the two alibi witnesses contradicted each other. The jury chose to believe the eyewitnesses and disbelieve the alibi witnesses. Under the circumstances, the identification of the defendant by the two eyewitnesses was sufficient to support the judgment of conviction *(cf. People v Morris,*100 AD2d 600; *People v Walston,*99 AD2d 847; *People v McCann,*90 AD2d 554).

Contrary to defendant’s contentions, the prosecutor’s summation was proper and did not deprive him of a fair trial *(see, e.g., People v Galloway,*54 NY2d 396; *People v Jones,*89 AD2d 875).

Defendant has not preserved for appellate review any of his belated claims of error with respect to the court’s charge *(see, People v Gonzales,*56 NY2d 1001; *People v Cruz,*97 AD2d 518) and, in any event, the charge, taken as a whole, conveyed the correct applicable standards to the jury *(see, People v Canty,*60 NY2d 830).

*677Finally, defendant’s sentence of 4 to 12 years for the class B armed violent felony of robbery in the first degree is well below the maximum permissible sentence of 12 Vi to 25 years *(see,*Penal Law § 70.02 [2] [a]; [3] [a]; [4]), and cannot be termed excessive under the facts of this case. Bracken, J. P., Rubin, Lawrence and Fiber, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, Joan Katzeff, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Thanksgiving Coffee Company, Inc for the year ended December 31, 2004; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 

4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13(a)-15(e) and 15(d)-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have: 

 

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

 

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls and procedures presented in this report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; 

 

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’smost recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer’s internal control overfinancial reporting; 

 

5. The small business issuer’s other certifyingofficers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions); 

 

a) All significant deficiencies andmaterial weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: March 23, 2005
Exhibit 3.6

      State of Delaware
     Secretary of State
  Division or Corporations
Delivered 04:40 PM 08/28/2008
  FILED 04:40 PM 08/28/2008
SRV 080911865 - 4593859 FILE

                          CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
                                       OF
                      THE MT. PLEASANT STREET BAKERY, INC.

1.   The name of the corporation shall be The Mt. Pleasant Street Bakery, Inc.

2.   Its registered office in the State of Delaware is located at One Commerce
     Center, 1201 Orange Street, #600, Wilmington, Delaware 19899. The name of
     its registered agent at such address is InCorp Services, Inc.

3.   The purpose of the corporation shall be to engage in any lawful act or
     activity for which corporations may be organized under the General
     Corporation Law of Delaware.

4.   The total number of shares which the corporation shall be authorized to
     issue is ten thousand (10,000) shares of common stock with a par value of
     $0.001 per share.

5.   The powers, preferences and rights and the qualifications, limitations or
     restrictions thereof shall be determined by the board of directors.

6.   The name and address of the incorporator is as follows:

                           Christopher R. Sackett
                           Suite 2000 Ruan Center
                           666 Grand Avenue
                           Des Moines, IA 50309

7.   The board of directors of the corporation shall have the power to adopt,
     amend or repeal the bylaws of the corporation.

8.   No director shall be personally liable to the corporation or its
     stockholders for monetary damages for any breach of fiduciary duty by such
     director as a director. Notwithstanding the foregoing sentence, a director
     shall be liable to the extent provided by applicable law, (i) for breach of
     the director's duty of loyalty to the corporation or its stockholders, (ii)
     for acts or omissions not in good faith or which involve intentional
     misconduct or a knowing violation of law, (iii) pursuant to Section 174 or
     the Delaware General Corporation Law or (iv) for any transaction from which
     the director derived an improper personal benefit. No amendment to or
     repeal of this Section 8 shall apply to or have any effect on the liability
     or alleged liability of any director of the corporation for or with respect
     to any acts or omissions of such director occurring prior to such
     amendment.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, being the incorporator herein before named,
has executed, signed and acknowledged this certificate of incorporation this
28th day of August, 2008.


                               By: /s/ Christopher R. Sackett
                                  ------------------------------------
                                  Christopher R. Sackett, Incorporator
EXHIBIT 23.1


CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


Securities and Exchange Commission
Washington, D.C.


We  consent  to the  incorporation  of our  report  dated  April 2,  2004 on the
financial  statements of AGU  Entertainment  Corp.  (formerly  Lexington  Barron
technologies,  Inc.) for the year ended December 31, 2003,  which is included in
this Amendment No. 1 to Form 10-KSB,  and to the reference to our Firm under the
caption "Experts" in the Amendment No. 1 to Form 10-KSB.


/s/ Cordovano and Honeck, P.C.

Denver, CO.
June 15, 2004



                                       54
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Ex parte Simon Martinez Martinez

No. 06-23-00208-CR

Appeal from the County Court of Kinney

County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 10388CR). 

Memorandum Opinion delivered by Justice 

Rambin, Chief Justice Stevens and Justice 

van Cleef participating. 

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find reversible error in the judgment of 

the court below. Therefore, we reverse the trial court’s order denying Martinez’s requested relief 

on his application for a writ of habeas corpus and remand the cause for further proceedings 

consistent with the precedent of the Fourth Court of Appeals.

We note that the appellant, Simon Martinez Martinez, has adequately indicated his 

inability to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED DECEMBER 1, 2023

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

SCOTT E. STEVENS

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk